I'm sure it's been asked, but.... (20D and football)

I've searched and haven't really come up with a definite answer. Plus, I'd like to know what you guys use and why.

Anyway, a friend of mine works on the film crew for our football team (UNC Chapel Hill), and has a film SLR that he recently got after being infatuated with my 20D (but not having the money to go digital). Anyway, he's brought his camera to practice some, and his boss commented about him taking some pictures at a game sometime. So I told my friend that he should tell his boss that I'd be more than happy to come take some pictures for them if they'd get me a good lens

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

In my opinion, if you don't have a lot of money, the most versatile lens is the 70-200 2.8 image stabilized lens. I use it for many sports and it is great. I recently bought a 1.4 teleconverter but only used it once at my daughter's soccer game and it was a very foggy day so the pictures did not come out well at all as a result.

If money were not an issue, I'd want the 300 2.8, but I might prefer a nice used car instead.

wow.... yeah, the 300mm f/2.8 is quite a bit out of my price range.... I had been contemplating the 70-200 f/2.8 originally but was wondering how people have had it perform on a full-sized football field

If you are shooting from high in the press box, then you'll need something really long. If you are along the sidelines, it can be much shorter. In the stands, it depends.

---Bob Gross---

Why on earth would you want the expensive IS lens for football? Ask everyone to hold real still while you take the picture? Although I do agree with you, the 70-200 2.8 (non-IS) would be the best choice for a 'low cost' sports lens.

Although as soon as you start sticking a 2x teleconverter on it, you might as well use the 100-400L IMO. Instead of 140-400 you'd get 100-400, so a little more range, although the push/pull is a love it or hate it. I *like* it.



Adam

P.S. I don't shoot football, mostly moving cars, but I DO want that 300 2.8!

For the same price as the 70-200 L F2,8 you can get the 100-400 L. If it works for bird photography it will work for football.

Well, that's why I'm asking, of course, because I have no idea of what would be a good choice for such an event. I've also never used Image Stabilization, so I don't know how that works exactly. Also, I could always just turn the IS off for the football shots.

And I'm not sure where I'd be able to be at, really... I know they'd have the ability to let me get on the side-lines, but whether or not they actually would is another story altogether.

How'd the quality of it being able to pick out individual people with that f/4.5-5.6?

I'm pretty happy with my Canon 300mm f/4L, which I bought just for football and is only around $1100. A 300 f/2.8L or 400 f/2.8L would be better, but both are big bucks. Personally I think the 100-400L is a little on the slow side for football, and I had also considered the 70-200 F/2.8L but I feel that is too short for football unless you use a 1.4x extender on it. Another reason I went with the the 300 f/4L is that it is a very light combo on the 20D, and is very sharp wide open which is a must for football.

All these shots in my football galleries were shot with the 20D and 300mm f/4L. Printroom.com compresses the hell out of the thumbnails, though.
www.millstoneeagles.co​m

pcasciola wrote:
I'm pretty happy with my Canon 300mm f/4L, which I bought just for football and is only around $1100. A 300 f/2.8L or 400 f/2.8L would be better, but both are big bucks. Personally I think the 100-400L is a little on the slow side for football, and I had also considered the 70-200 F/2.8L but I feel that is too short for football unless you use a 1.4x extender on it. Another reason I went with the the 300 f/4L is that it is a very light combo on the 20D, and is very sharp wide open which is a must for football.

All these shots in my football galleries were shot with the 20D and 300mm f/4L. Printroom.com compresses the hell out of the thumbnails, though.
www.millstoneeagles.co​m

That looks like a pretty nice lens, I may have to look into that. $1100 is still a good steep price, but much better than nearly $4,000 or so!

If I were shooting from the sidelines and trying to get action shots of individual players, then I would be using a very fast, rather long lens, and it would be mounted on a monopod. In that case, I.S. would make every bit of sense.

OTOH, if I were shooting from high in the press box, then I would be going after overall plays, and I would have an even longer lens on a tripod. There, the I.S. would not be very important at all.

---Bob Gross---

perhaps you should get some more information about this gig before going to purchase a new lens. if you're not even on the sidelines you may as just sit out this season and ask that they hire you next year. the shots you're going to get from shooting at an elevation aren't going to be very good ... I've gotten a few interesting shots shooting slightly elevated but it's more difficult.

that said, I don't think I'd drop bucks on a 70-200 2.8L unless they're willing to at least subsidize a little bit of it. That's quite a purchase if you're not getting paid for your photographs (unless you are, then you'd have to do math to see how many photos you'd need to sell to recoop the costs).

Maybe you should consider a 70-200 f/4 L...you can get one of these for less than $500 on Ebay. I buy really cheap (right now my biggest lens is an older 70-210 f/4) and I was even considering getting the 70-200 f/4 L for swimming and basketball, after selling a few gadgets I don't really need .

If you're on a really small budget, there are some OK alternatives ... 75-300, 55-200, 70-210 4, or 28-300. They're not very fast, though and the depth of field won't be very shallow. But they might be good to get you started.

The difference would be that with the 70-200 you would get a group hudle and with the 100-400 you get a head shot. It widens almost to the 70 catagory but doubles the tele end.

With three of my lenses having F 2.8 I very rarley use it for sports or action bird photography because of the limited depth of field.

When I use my 70-200 it is good for my grand sons soccor because I can walk the field but at high school & College games the ref's will not let you.

An example is my Heron shots when he is in the same area, with the 70-200 I fill half the frame and with the 100-400 I fill the whole frame.

The 70-200 will do the job but I found myself spending more money because I needed the reach, now I own 2 lenses where 1 would have done the job all around.

I've found that when you have a professional-looking lens, especially the putty-colored ones that I love, the refs think you're press and they let you roam freely. I've even stood behind second base during my daughter's softball games with the ump saying not a word, other than: Don't take my picture, I've been in the paper enough.

Next month I've been tasked with photographing my son's foootball coaching of primary school kids (age 6-11) for his web site and I've been following this thread with interest.

My lens for this is Sigma's 100-400 EX f4 (I have the 1.4TC but probably won't need it) on a 20D.

This is a well assessed lens see http://www.photozone.d​e/2Equipment/easytxt.h​tm#Ztelel

and I wonder what your guys reaction to it is as a reasonably priced lens alternative.

You have got a lot of "I'm not sures', maybes', sort ofs', and I thinks'"

Tighten up on the specs or you could commit financial suicide before you got started.

Find out exactly what they are looking for !! If they don't know, then YOU tell them what they will get from your participation. You have a good opportunity here, but YOU have to take control. There is obviously a glimmer of interest - fan the flame !